checker_answerGiven a question id and the chosen option (its choice index), return the next question or the final verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| choice | Yes | ||
| question | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool consumes a 'question id' and 'choice index' and returns 'next question or final verdict', but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it records an answer), authorization needs, or error behavior. For a tool named 'checker_answer', the lack of detail on whether it persists the answer is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence that front-loads the function and outputs, with no extraneous wording. Every clause serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context: what the 'next question' looks like (structure), whether 'final verdict' is always present, and how to handle invalid question ids or out-of-range choices. For a tool that likely drives a quiz flow, an agent needs more behavioral expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'question' is a question id and 'choice' is an option index, providing minimal semantics beyond the schema. It does not clarify the format of the question id (e.g., string identifier) or whether the choice index is zero-based (schema minimum is 0, so implicit but not stated in description).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('return') and resource ('next question or final verdict') tied to inputs ('question id and chosen option'), which distinguishes it from typical CRUD tools. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'checker_start' or 'checker_tree', but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: use this tool after having a 'question id' and a selected choice index. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., when to use checker_start to begin or checker_tree to view options), but the basic trigger is inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: checker_start, checker_answer, and checker_tree map to different ways of interacting with the decision guide, while enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and submit_enquiry cover distinct aspects of the enquiry flow. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
Tool names follow a clear pattern using 'checker_' and 'enquiry_' prefixes, with the second part indicating the action or resource. The one minor inconsistency is submit_enquiry, which inverts the verb_first ordering compared to enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, but the overall scheme remains predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's dual purpose of running a decision checklist and submitting an enquiry. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither too thin nor bloated.
The checker workflow is complete with start, stepwise answer, and full tree access, while the enquiry workflow covers description, field metadata, and the two-step consent-based submission. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.